Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 October 7

< October 6	October 8 >

October 7

Template:Bella Thorne

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:42, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bella Thorne (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Typically, there aren't navboxes for actors listing the films and televisions series they've appeared in, leaving a few songs and soundtracks that are already in the {{Shake It Up}} template, making this redundant. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:44, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:05, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete as redundant to the navigation in {{Shake It Up}}. Frietjes (talk) 19:03, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:3DS vs DS series

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was move to Comparison of Nintendo portable consoles Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:43, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:3DS vs DS series (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not relevant. Looks to be original research. The Banner _talk 14:20, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I completely disagree. It contains relevant encyclopedic content by comparing product differences from each other, contained in the same family of products. --Arkhandar (talk) 14:30, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It does so in such an overbearingly data-heavy way as to be harder to read than simple comparative, prose, however. The DS range does not simply consist of minor variants of basically the same product, like a line of televisions: it consists of entirely separate products that are frequently upsold to existing users of the same family. It should be substituted into the one article that uses it and rewritten entirely to present its comparisons in prose. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:37, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain to me how you're suppose to convert a template this size to a simple prose. I seriously doubt it could get any better than this. What I propose is to either leave it be or divide the cells in a way that you have different titles for different aspects of the systems and that above them there could be some prose for better explaining. This way you wouldn't have a big template for all these aspects but instead you'd have a different table for each different aspect. --Arkhandar (talk) 18:23, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Line by line. it's not an easy task, but nor is it especially more difficult than the construction of any other bit of prose given a large amount of data points. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:16, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:04, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move & Delete - There are advantages to having a comparison like this in a chart as opposed to written out in prose. It would be tedious and unnecessary to describe items such as the display and battery using the same level of detail outside of the chart. Instead, prose should accompany the chart offering brief summaries of the items listed. With that said, I also question how much original research there is in the chart. The number of items can also be reduced maybe to only include hardware specifications. We can list a lot of ideas to improve the chart, but I don't believe there is enough justification to delete it. —GoneIn60 (talk) 01:04, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update - Based on the discussion below, my position is now to move the information into an existing article, Nintendo handhelds (revised name to be determined at a later date), and to delete the template.

Move & Delete – transfer the table from being a Template to Mainspace as Comparison of Nintendo portable consoles, or similar, link via a {{main}} under a new "Comparison" heading with a brief summary style roundup. Copy-edit the table as necessary to be self-contained. I don't see why it needs to be "rewritten entirely in prose", and not table-based.. Comparison of Canon EOS digital cameras and Comparison of Nikon DSLR cameras have tables, and are totally unreferenced, I see no complaints there. Technology is best compared as tabular data, and that seem to be more encyclopedic than trying to explain each model using prose in a non-technical fashion without risk of repetition. Readers don't want to be confused by reading prose on every model just to find their own, or to compare a couple, when they can simply skim down columns and rows more rapidly. Technical catalogues manuals have been doing it for years. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 02:24, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I support the proposal to move and delete for the reasons stated. Seems like a good compromise. —GoneIn60 (talk) 08:41, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I can't say much more then what Arkhandar has already said. It has information that is very useful for anyone who needs to look up this product on this site. And besides, what's wrong with when there's basically the same thing on each generation console page? Should we remove those too? Rowdy the Ant talk to Rowdy 22:48, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I do agree with MarcusBritish, but I just found Nintendo handhelds. Its one of those articles randomly created that no one knows about, so it can use some attention. I'm not sure why this unwieldy template of two separate product families exist, and at one time, was being shoehorned in every individual DS and 3DS handheld article. This is similar to creating a GBA vs. DS template then do said shoehorning. Only one article is using this template, and the Nintendo DS family already has its own model comparison - as it should. I do agree with MarcusBritish's idea of a brief summary style roundup. As the start of a new product line, the 3DS only needs to be compared to its larger model. « ₣M₣ » 18:33, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The chart brings to the table what tends to get buried in prose: the similarities and differences with previous models and generations. One might argue that the chart makes it easier to locate information by category or to understand contrasts across models, as opposed to sifting through paragraphs of prose in any number of articles. Granted, it needs some work - ok perhaps a lot of work! However, being in the right or wrong place (i.e. template vs. article) doesn't necessarily mean the comparison shouldn't exist or wouldn't be useful. Also, I wouldn't cite lack of precedence as a reason to delete in this situation. —GoneIn60 (talk) 19:11, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not an issue. Move Nintendo handhelds to Comparison of handheld Nintendo consoles which is less ambiguous. Remove the DS rows from that simpler table, and header what remains as a "Gameboy" section. Merge this templates into a new "DS" section beneath. Done. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 00:18, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any scenario that retains the comparison somewhere on Wikipedia is fine with me. I was only responding to the suggestion of outright deletion. —GoneIn60 (talk) 12:54, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know, and I agree to retain its content for better use. The problem here, and I'm afraid it is the creators error, is calling it a "template". A template is an empty set of parameters allowing for it to be completed to relate to different pages. This, however, is pre-filled with all the current info.. so it doesn't act as a template as we know it. And it's huge, not some small summarised info/naxbox than would be found placed on a range of Nintendo articles, it's made for one, but seems it's too bulky even for that. It's an article, by most standards, might as well move it and treat it as one, that would seem to offer if more potential for development and expansion if new DS models are released. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 18:16, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move to main article space as per GoneIn60 and MarcusBritish. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:59, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox Turkish deity

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:49, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Turkish deity (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only seven transclusions. Merge into the planned {{Infobox deity}}, per consensus at TfD#Deity templates Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:37, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:59, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep until there has been some progress on the merged template. the holding cell already has six templates listed for merger into the currently-non-existing deity template, with no progress since March. there could be unforeseen issues in the merger, and until I can see the merged template, I cannot comment on the merger of this one with one that does not exist. Frietjes (talk) 19:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox Slavic deity

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:50, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Slavic deity (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only five transclusions. Merge into the planned {{Infobox deity}}, per consensus at TfD#Deity templates Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:35, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:59, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep until there has been some progress on the merged template. the holding cell already has six templates listed for merger into the currently-non-existing deity template, with no progress since March. there could be unforeseen issues in the merger, and until I can see the merged template, I cannot comment on the merger of this one with one that does not exist. Frietjes (talk) 19:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox Khalifatul Masih

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was merge Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:53, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Khalifatul Masih (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox caliph}}. Only six transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:48, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, Khalifatul Masih is a specific form of spiritual Caliph which is the leader of specifically the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community and no where else. Nor does the Khalifatul Masih hold any political power over any state. Therefore this infobox should NOT be deleted. Talk to Tp 2k7 04:59, 7 October 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:12, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Tp 2k7 Those points are irrelevant. What matters is whether the nominated template has any features not provided, and not capable of being provided, by {{Infobox caliph}}. Do you see any? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:26, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant to {{Infobox caliph}}. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File message box layout templates

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:53, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Copyrighted-Layout (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:PD-Layout (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:CC-Layout (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Message box styling that is no longer widely used since imbox took over. WOSlinker (talk) 13:48, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Existing transclustions could just be substituted. -- WOSlinker (talk) 11:56, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete after fixing transclusions. Frietjes (talk) 18:55, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Cite quick

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Results: 1) Keep the template. 2) Wrong forum for discussion of the user's behavior. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 19:23, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite quick (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 July 15#Template:Fcite. A recreation of that template now being deployed in article space against that consensus. Delete and sanction the author for yet again ignoring and trying to circumvent consensus. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 13:03, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment + Keep – How do you "sanction" an editor who develops a template that results in cutting this:

NewPP limit report
Preprocessor visited node count: 282980/1000000
Preprocessor generated node count: 159462/1500000
Post-expand include size: 2048000/2048000 bytes
Template argument size: 938948/2048000 bytes
Highest expansion depth: 18/40

Expensive parser function count: 12/500

Down to this:

NewPP limit report
Preprocessor visited node count: 82583/1000000
Preprocessor generated node count: 158172/1500000
Post-expand include size: 1178353/2048000 bytes
Template argument size: 417064/2048000 bytes
Highest expansion depth: 18/40

Expensive parser function count: 13/500

As far as I can see, he's done the extremely lengthy Barrack Obama article a favour... it was clearly maxing page processing limitations before the template was put into place, now it's halved some of them... why all the fuss? Did it break anything? Also, quote from the linked TFD: "Keep as useful and harmless experiment. Use sparingly where traffic is high and standard templates causing significant issues.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:38, 16 July 2012 (UTC)" – One article seems "sparingly" to me, and I'm sure he knows what he's talking about. Obama is a high traffic page, right? ;) Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 13:23, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See the linked discussion for the consensus that {{fcite}} should not be deployed in article space. The problem is the editor who created it decided to after that discussion duplicate that template, hope nobody would notice, then start deploying it in articles. The 'it is faster so we should use it' argument was the main argument used then, but the consensus was it should not be used, because of the problems including that it breaks many instances of the templates. So yes, as a badly broken template it broke many of the citations, changing how they look including hiding the publisher in some, changing the look of many others, if you compare the before and after versions.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 13:35, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See my "Also..." appended to above comment. "Hope nobody would notice" is hardly AGF, seeing as left a lengthy post on Obama's talk page: Talk:Barack Obama#Fixing template-size error with Cite quick and an edit summary advising of it. It's only in 2 articles.. one by him, one by someone else. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 13:41, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There were keep, delete and keep-but-not-use votes, and the discussion was closed with the latter determination. It was in three articles before I removed it from one. I could not undo the change that added it to Barack Obama, and as it had been used to replace instances of different templates (which is also why it broke so many of them) it could not be easily be done by hand; it would be easier for the editor who made the change only two days ago as they would have a better idea what they changed.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 13:51, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I dunno mate, can't see anything broken.. but with it being over 225kb, more than twice what WP:SIZERULE recommends to split, and 318 references, it's probably buckling under it's own weight, and needs urgent measures, even experimental ones, to hold things up for a while.. splitting an article or trimming it down takes a lot of effort to keep everyone happy.. I hate to see what it'll do if he gets a second-term.. but I think you're worrying far too much about "consensus" when "common sense" is needed for an article this hefty and popular.. it'd be better to think of this template as a sort of pontoon bridge, until someone can engineer something more secure to deal with the weight.. pontoons may float off from time to time, but they rarely sink if you go easy. ;) Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 14:17, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For how much it can break an article compare Bibliography of South America before and after the template was added; all of the authors of the citations were hidden, the dates were moved and the brackets around them removed. The errors in Barack Obama are more varied and less obvious but of the same kind; lost information and unnecessary formatting changes. WP:CITEVAR is clear: editors should not change the formatting of citations without first gaining consensus for it. They certainly should not make changes that hide useful information provided by other editors.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 17:57, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed for combined last+author: I have changed {cite_quick} to handle "Bibliography of South America" for each unusual blank "author=" after "last=xx". That article had been reverted before I could fully compare results. -Wikid77 10:41, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The template doc. claims to support author/first/last, but I'm not seeing them in the example you gave. Apart from that, the other "missing" info is not extremely vital. Your average reader will find a book based on author and title alone.. personally I like having an ISBN and go through the Amazon link, but it's easier to mistype an ISBN than a author's name, and because publications can share the same title as other things in print, should be visible. That said, I still don't see need to delete the template, only to fix it and make it more stable.. we can't always rely on the same set of templates year in, year out.. new ones need to be created to help us work with the increasing amount of data being added to articles, which is only limited by server constraints. It's always annoying to create a long article and find that the bottom templates can't be rendered because it means sacrificing something else. Unfortunately, you want to delete this template, but offer no suggestion as to what to sacrifice.. if we delete this template, the Barack Obama article will instantly revert back to it's old state with maxed out limits and unrendered content. What's the best of both evils.. missing a few minor scraps of optional data in citations (remember, citing reliable sources is policy, but how they're cited is is MOS guideline), or whole templates missing from the bottom? Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 23:26, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"editors should not change the formatting of citations without first gaining consensus for it" – he's not changing the "format" as such, more like he's suppressing secondary parameters to aid page load. That can hardly be construed as disruptive to warrant sanctions, given the strain Obama's article is under. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 23:29, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re 'year in, year out' we won't have to wait years, only months, for when Lua scripting is rolled out. It will allow slow templates to be rewritten in a much faster and more appropriate (than parser functions) programming language. See it working on the test2 wiki. So even if the problems with this were fixed and it were integrated with existing templates by the time that happened it would be unnecessary.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 00:05, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lua doesn't work right now. This does work right now. Please read WP:CRYSTAL. It wasn't likely written with this in mind, but it could easily be applied. --No unique names 00:31, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep from author as new combined template not recreation: This Template:Cite_quick was created months ago, as a compromise solution to issues raised in the wp:TfD for older Template:Fcite and Template:Fcite_journal (etc.) which support more parameters but are slower. The overall goal is to be much faster, and avoid error "page exceeded template include size" as caused by {cite_web} or {cite_book} (etc.) in large articles, such as with U.S. President "Barack Obama" which could not display the bottom 2 navboxes, {Persondata} nor Authority control. However, people had complained that fast-cite templates can be confusing because they are unsure which parameters are supported, so Template:Cite_quick was designed (as a compromise) to support only the most-common major parameters, which are clearly listed in the documentation, and act as one template to handle most citations (for web, news, book & journal). In fact, {cite_quick} even lists the parameters which it does not support, as doubly sure that users know what to expect, and when to use the original templates instead. Because {cite_quick} is only 3 months old, it has had to be adjusted for format differences with the other wp:CS1 templates, such as {cite_journal}. Also, people have kept rapidly removing it from other articles without consensus discussions, which has hampered the feedback, from part-time volunteers, of knowing how to improve it to support the major articles for which it was designed. Hence, {cite_quick} should be kept as a promising new template in the wp:CS1 style, but needs some minor improvements to better support large articles which die on include-size error or time-out on wp:Wikimedia Foundation error with slower {cite_web} or {cite_book}. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:30, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting beyond tiresome, and it's disappointing to see editors still getting suckered into supporting Wikid77's disruption based on arbitrary page load improvement times. These citation templates should not ever be getting deployed without first getting strong consensus for it; they should most certainly not be getting rolled out on one of the highest-profile biographies on the entire encyclopedia without thorough testing to ensure zero breakage. That we're hitting the transclusion limit on Barack Obama is troublesome, for sure, but it is most certainly not Wikid77's prerogative to take that as a green light to ignore months and months of previous discussion and to unilaterally roll out revision #16 of his new citation system as a silver bullet. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:00, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Woah! Given that I'm the only person to have commented.. who's been "suckered" in exactly? Even Jimbo Wales calls it "useful and harmless" and motioned for its use in certain circumstances such as we see with Obama. I think the claims of "disruption" are somewhat far-fetched. I mean, we're talking one article here, two at most.. that's hardly wide-spread disruption or wanton vandalism, is it. I agree, it may be in its early stages and not quite ready for wider application, but let's not get carried away with the real situation.. one highly-bloated article with proven relief is at least making a conscious effort.. even if it has to be temporary. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 11:55, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The BLP of the current President of the United States of America is not a suitable skunkworks for testing experimental new citation systems, especially where there is community consensus not to deploy them in articlespace in the first place. There are well-grounded reasons not to use the new system, particularly in high-quality articles where cites are fuller and great accuracy is demanded. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 21:15, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It also isn't an appropriate battleground for those who just don't like the thing that happens to work. The horse is dead, so don't flog it. Just use the template. --No unique names 00:31, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Any alternate formatting is accidental and fixable. I have tested {cite_quick} on thousands of citations, and adjusted the alignment when needed. So, {cite_quick} is no longer "experimental" and that is why it formatted all 405 of those citations in article "Barack Obama" despite a variety of data added during the past 5 years. At this point, any differences in format need to be pinpointed so the template can be further improved. Please understand that {cite_quick} not only formatted the prior 405 citations (which exceeded the limits for {cite_web} etc.), but {cite_quick} can also handle another 500 extra citations beyond that mere 405, and handle all of those 6x times faster than {cite_web} or {cite_book} cratered on the prior citations. As noted above, this is just a temporary, massive advancement in Wikipedia's technology, and further improvements can be added to {cite_quick} as needed, including links to future Lua modules in the next 6 months or so. Also, as noted above, the use of {cite_quick} can be mixed with other templates and is intended for major important articles, such as page "Barack Obama" viewed over 61,000 times per day in October 2012. -Wikid77 (talk) 22:26, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question: with seemingly obligatory first sentence in important bold Why the hell does your template produce results that you yourself describe as "accidental", ie behaviour that you had not expected despite your oft-(self)-cited "years of studying citation templates?" pablo 11:49, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fast versus old, and combinations versus common parameters: There are several reasons for unintended format differences between {cite_quick} and other wp:CS1 templates. As a compromise with older templates, {cite_quick} was designed, firstly, to be fast, and secondly to match {cite_web}, {cite_book}, and {cite_journal} formats. So, {cite_quick} had treated "author=xx" as primary, then "last=yy" as 2nd in order (for faster speed); however, the empty "author=" was blanking author last names, so {cite_quick} was altered to check parameter "last=yy" as first in order, to match {cite_web} which ignores empty "author=" when "last=yy" is present. After testing several dozen other articles, then none of those articles had used empty "author=" and so the problem was only spotted recently. The various possible combinations of empty parameters is an issue of "combinatorics" versus the common usage of non-empty parameters. Consequently, exhaustive testing of 12 template parameters, used 2, 3, 4, 5,... 12 at a time, involves checking for 12! (factorial) cases = 479,001,600 various parameter combinations. However, there are only 4.1 million articles, which do not even test all 479 million combinations, and meanwhile, {cite_quick} already supports over 40 major parameters (not just 12), while {cite_web} supports over 230 parameters. Now, just 15 parameters means testing for 15*14*13*12! combinations, as 1,307,674,368,000 (over 1.3 trillion) cases, and 20 parameters means (20!) 2,432,902,008,176,640,000 (2.4 quintillion) cases, but {cite_quick} supports over 40 parameters. You do the math, to test all possible combinations of 40 basic parameters. Hence, {cite_quick} has had some format differences. Plus, what are the chances that old {cite_web} or the new Lua script cite modules also have some errors in formatting? ...about ~100%. For simplicity, I chose not to talk about the errors in {cite_web} or {cite_journal}, other than they exceed the template-include-size limit, but focus instead on checking {cite_quick} in various articles. Unfortunately, when {cite_quick} has been placed in articles, some editors have removed it before other editors could comment on format differences, and thus {cite_quick} improvements were thwarted and delayed to later match the format of peculiar parameter combinations. Does that help explain why {cite_quick}, or {cite_web}, is not perfect yet? -Wikid77 (talk) 15:15, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter why it is broken (the proper term for something that clearly doesn't work rather than your "not perfect"). The consensus of the TfD discussion was that these should not be used in articles and should only be used for testing. You can easily test them to your hearts content: userfy some articles, or just their refs, and use that for tests. Then once fixed introduce them and try and gain consensus for their use. Don't use these templates that you know are broken on mainspace articles against consensus.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 15:54, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, "bugged" or "not perfect" would be equally valid, and the current templates (which you advocate) don't work in all circumstances and would be describable legitimately in the same terms. Just saying as a coder... --No unique names 00:31, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Was broken article: However, the broken article "Barack Obama" is now fixed by new template {cite_quick}, where {cite_news} and {cite_web} broke the page by crashing the bottom 14 templates, including 2 crucial navboxes, {Persondata}, Authority control, and all the FA/GA interwiki links to other-language wikipedias. That was the past, and now with rapid {cite_quick}, the article could be expanded to even twice as large, with over 810 instances of {cite_quick} (not just 405), and still reformat in half the time of {cite_news} or {cite_book}, despite becoming over 2x larger in future years. So, it was a broken article, not now. -Wikid77 11:24, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete per JohnBlackburne (nom), and strongly endorse sanctioning Wikid77 for disruption. This bullshite has been going on for months, template, after template, and he just insists on not listening. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 15:44, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: above user is a banned sockpuppet.--Salix (talk): 16:00, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Not at the time he commented, he wasn't. So now is it appropriate to call you a bad-faith, gravedancing son-of-a-bitch? Feel free to strike this, when you strike yours. pablo 08:52, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: he wasn't a sockpuppet before he was banned? Funny.. could have sworn that's how it works. Support ignoring Br'er Rabbit's vote, per WP:DENY. Grave-dancing is irrelevant, no one's dead, just another pillock caught red-handed. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 11:39, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Completely inappropriate. Was always a disallowed sock per Arbcom. --No unique names 00:31, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete or move to userspace or a sandbox. we should not be continuously forking templates, ... Frietjes (talk) 17:42, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this template allows featured article "Barack Obama" to entirely reformat, whereas {cite_news} crashed the bottom 14 templates, so yes we need to fork, or develop, a cite template to handle large articles, although Template:Cite_quick is more of a "funnel" than a fork, because it replaces the prior 4 forks of {cite_news}, {cite_web}, {cite_book}, and {cite_journal} in major articles which use common cite parameters. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:35, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then why not just overwrite the defaults? Wouldn't that also be within what you want? --No unique names 00:31, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'Remove from mainspace and use for testing only. If that is not possible to enforce, delete and sanction creator. I'll extend an olive branch to allow this for testing, but if that restriction can't or won't be honored, then stronger measured will be required. Imzadi 1979 → 23:57, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The template has already been updated to handle all citations in featured article "Barack Obama" so how can you want to remove it from mainspace, when {cite_quick} works where {cite_news} crashes a featured article at the bottom 3 navboxes, {Persondata}, Authority control, and the wp:FA/GA interwiki links to other-language wikipedias. It sounds like you do not care about navboxes, {Persondata}, interwiki links, or featured articles. Please reconsider. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:35, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Templates are just a convenience - a type of shorthand and so editors should be allowed some reasonable freedom to explore and experiment. The intended purpose of this template seems quite sensible and I'm going to try it myself, now I've heard of it. Wikipedia supports multiple styles of citation and so draconian methods such as deletion should not be used as a means of attacking competing styles and methods. Warden (talk) 12:29, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Warden, read WP:POINT - the template is broken. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:59, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Template updated, Obama article was broken: However, the broken article "Barack Obama" is now fixed by new template {cite_quick}, where {cite_news} broke the page by crashing the bottom 14 templates, including 3 navboxes, {Persondata}, Authority control, and all the FA/GA interwiki links to other-language wikipedias. That was the major "broken" page, and now with rapid {cite_quick}, the article could be expanded to even 2x larger, with over 810 instances of {cite_quick} (not just 402), and still reformat in half the time of {cite_news} or {cite_book}, despite becoming over 2x larger in future years. So, it was a broken article, not now. -Wikid77 15:47, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please demonstrate where you see it not working. Of course, then it will be fixed and invalidate your argument, but at least you would have an argument. --Nouniquenames 00:31, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - On this page. Look at the example below (Grier, Peter...) and compare the HTML output. Cite quick is missing large amounts of functionality of Cite news. It's faster with functionality removed, but very broken. This has been pointed out to Wikid77 multiple times but he keeps ignoring it.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 02:33, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A car without wheels lacks functionality, but it isn't "broken". I don't see that this template is "broken" in the HTML.. if it were the HTML would not parse properly and would either show raw HTML on article pages, or none at all, that is the only definition that applies to "broken HTML", and most web code. But given that detractors here keep changing their tone and wording, between "broken", "error" and "buggy", I honestly don't think half of them actually know what they're talking about, in terms of screen output, because all these terms have different meanings semantically and each can be used all at once, or in various combinations, but they're not interchangable.. a bug may cause an error or something to break, or both. But I see no evidence that any article utilising the template is displaying errors or is broken. So let's make sure people know what they mean, and can demonstrate examples, rather than casting doubts and false claims on the template, or the creator, for the sake of trying to win this bloody argument. As someone said earlier, this discussion is a sham, more a witch-hunt against the creator, with people speaking utter bollocks.. there are a load of Keeps, stupid "Strong deletes" are no more remarkable that "Deletes", and no genuine examples of broken pages, no damage caused, just speculation, attacks and theories.. This discussion needs to be closed, and proper time spent developing the template, if needs be, instead of whining about the "ifs and buts" of why it doesn't work right, and find ways to make it work. It's as simple as that.. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 18:14, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Don't delete it, just don't use it until they fix it. Copy and paste large articles over to a user page to test it out first. If it works better than something else, and has zero errors, then they can discuss it somewhere, get confirmation it causes no errors anywhere, and then begin using it. Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater Dream Focus 13:07, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- After recent changes, then I think Template:Cite_quick is fixed now. -Wikid77 15:47, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note. Those participating in this discussion should be aware that User:Colonel Warden has canvassed for this template to be kept at Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Rescue list. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:17, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So far as I know, the ARS doesn't have any kind of party line on templates or citation methods. It just seemed an interesting and relevant discussion as the ARS is in the business of adding citations to articles. Anyway the posting was open, limited, neutral and non-partisan and so that's fine. Warden (talk) 19:17, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for noting how ARS adds citations. I reviewed your message to see it was a "neutral notice" and not canvassing of any sort. I helped to rewrite wp:CANVAS, years ago, to enable more editors to talk about planned improvements, and issue neutral notices, which is completely proper. Thanks. -Wikid77 (talk) 19:47, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite_quick continued

Comment - Template was, is now NOT broken: For days, people have been repeating claims of "broken template" but the reality is some slight punctuation differences, plus the template was misused in cases it did not support, and I have enhanced the template to handle those rare cases, and still run very quickly. For example, here is a cite from article "Barack Obama" (12 October 2012) to show the exact same results:

Cite_news: Grier, Peter (March 19, 2010). "Health care reform bill 101: Who must buy insurance?". The Christian Science Monitor. Washington, D.C. Archived from the original on April 5, 2010. Retrieved April 7, 2010.
Cite_quick:

I hope that example helps to show just exactly how precise Template:Cite_quick is, in actual operation running 9x times faster than {cite_news}, and certainly not "broken" in reality. Any punctuation differences in other cases are slight. -Wikid77 (talk) 19:47, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

O.k. you've demonstrated that it works for one particular example. What exactly does that tell us.... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:53, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He hasn't: the links are completely different (the wrong way round) so it's still broken. So if that's your best shot at a working example I hate to think how broken it needs to be for you to admit so.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 20:07, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And looking at Barack Obama now all the references with archive links, about half of them, are broken in the same way.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 20:17, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed live example to match {cite_news}. Okay, thank you for stating precise issues. Giving specific examples is the way to move forward. I already know the "Archived from the original" changes the link text depending on which url. -Wikid77 (talk) 22:52, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So that's one thing fixed, but there are still multiple errors in the references of Barack Obama, even just doing a superficial inspection without checking the links or HTML output. So it still is broken in many different ways, despite your repeated assertions. I'm sure they are trivial to fix but the way to do it is not to add a broken template it to a highly trafficked article then expect other editors to point out obvious errors.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 00:58, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. This nomination reeks of poor form. Also, no harm done, and it is absolutely useful. --No unique names 21:44, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — I don't see a strong reason for nomination in the first place. If the point of contention is that the template shouldn't be used on a certain article, than that should be addressed on the article's talk page. If the point of contention is that the template doesn't work properly, then that should be addressed on the template's talk page and then fixed. There is no indication that the template is fundamentally flawed and the template exists for a specific purpose and is therefore not redundant. In light of this, I see no credible reason for deletion. – Zntrip 00:47, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This seems like it is a technical solution for a limited problem, I see it as offering some benefits and encouraging sourcing, and i don't see any downsides although they may certainly exist. If this works within all the structures that the other citation templates operate I'm not sure i see a big problem. Perhaps some of the shortcuts here could be integrated into the other templates so that this one would be redundant completely? Then a merge into another template would make sense. Insomesia (talk) 02:58, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is no problem with the template here. If it works, it works. The problem is Wikid77, who again seems to have seen it fit to pre-emptively introduce his template into article space, which is simply stupid and asking for problems like this. The proper way, would have been to take one revision of the article, convert it and publish it into a sandbox. Then feeding both HTML results into a diff tool and actually PROOF to people that there would be no differences (which there were and that he then could have fixed before bringing the problem into article space). That is what getting consensus is about in such controversial issues as these. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:41, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- yes, that was the result of the previous discussions: these can be kept but only for testing. They might then be improved to the point where they can be deployed (after gaining consensus for this), or their improvements used to improve existing templates, or it might all be rendered irrelevant by the rollout of Lua scripting (the citation templates have already been converted). Hence the nomination of yet another one of these templates, to stop it being (mis)used in articles, and the call that some sanction be imposed to stop this happening again.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 15:09, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Others put {cite_quick} in articles, Obama page was an emergency: I do not know all the exact uses of the current 230 {cite_web} parameters, and I am focused on the major parameters of each citation when solving template speed/size problems. However, in the first month, I developed the talk-page Template_talk:Cite_quick for other editors to report concerns. Meanwhile, the use of {cite_quick} has been the choice of other editors, who judged it acceptable for their articles. That was difficult to trace, because {cite_quick} was pulled back out, with no discussion, and hence, when listing "WhatLinksHere" then {cite_quick} is not linked because not discussed in Talk:<article> where intended to remove, it was just yanked out with no feedback as to performance. After 3 months, I asked to put {cite_quick} into 9-time featured article "Barack Obama" as an emergency fix (for a huge broken page with 14 crashed bottom templates), which I knew was massively too large, but not aware that it exceeded limits by over 100 of 405 carefully chosen citations. Does anyone really think I predicted 3 months ago, I would write a template that, someday, would rescue the 9-time featured Obama article from a complex template-limit crisis. Trust me, if I had known that event was coming, I would have spent more time checking the numerous parameter combinations for those 9 or 10 cases which dropped the coauthors or solitary "place=" parameter. I did not even know the Obama article had cratered until over a week after the problems began. All I knew is that {cite_quick} allowed the Obama article to entirely reformat, top-to-bottom, and formatted all 405 cites with author, last, first, date, year, title, journal, work, volume, issue, url, location, agency, publisher, archiveurl, archivedate, accessdate, isbn, issn, doi, quote, and the remainder of the 41 major parameters. Another editor even commented how that much was fine, as an initial effort to rescue the article. Now, the suggestion to format 2 versions of the article, one with {cite_quick}, and compare a diff, is like saying to have an artist copy Da Vinci's Mona Lisa or Rembrandt's The Night Watch and compare brush strokes. The formatting of {cite_quick} is not always dot-for-dot identical to {cite_web} nor {cite_book} nor {cite_news} nor {cite_journal}, which are all non-compatible forks of each other. There is much complexity to even provide similar formatting, nowhere near identical, because Template:Cite_quick already processes 171 parameter values in 51 if-structures. That is why I asked other editors to report any major differences if they had found them. All the basic parameters were already displayed in those 405 citations. The use of {cite_quick} in the Obama article was an emergency fix. -Wikid77 (talk) 00:17, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there does seem to be a limited need. A citation which renders with limited info is better than a template which does not render at all. If Lua renders this template superfluous then it can reconsidered there. This is the wrong forum for discussion on sanctioning editors, WP:RFC or some other venue is more appropriate place for examining a long running dispute. The template does miss Wikipedia:COinS data which may be useful for external aps trying to get info from the page, this might account for a good chunk of size reduction but I don't how much this data is really used. Maybe a template exactly the same as {{Citation}} or {{cite web}} but without COinS might be a way to cut size but avoid missing fields.--Salix (talk): 14:37, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Filmography of John Wayne

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete, per consensus here, and prior consensus within the film wikiproject. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:56, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Filmography of John Wayne (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per the FILM MOS and a long standing consensus that actors should NOT have navigation templates for their filmographies. Lugnuts ^{And the horse} 09:56, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Link above is 2+ years old. So I'll raise WP:CCC for now. Put it this way.. I just spent 2+ hours applying this template to ~180 articles. If the template is deleted, I won't be trawling back through them all removing the Template:redlinks. If this is policy it should be clearly explained somewhere notable, not hidden away in a WikiProject's archives for nobody to see until it's too late. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 10:09, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's obvious when you think about it. Do you we need navigation articles for everyone's filmography on an article. The correct answer is no. Shame you wasted 2hrs of your life. Oh well. Lugnuts ^{And the horse} 10:22, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why not.. we have plenty of Director navboxes. There's not much difference.. actor/director's name with list of films..simplez. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 10:25, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The director is a defining attribute to the film. Look at the article for The Life of Jimmy Dolan which you slapped the template on. John Wayne is barely in it. Lugnuts ^{And the horse} 10:30, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Really.. so you're saying WP:IJDLI? Btw, "FAIL" is a childish edit summary, I'd expect that from a kid, don't be coy. Any FYI, I didn't "slap" the template on several articles I know he only had cameos in, including The Longest Day, How the West was Won, and The Greatest Story Ever Told, so you made a moot point, I simply haven't see Jimmy Dolan to know how big a part he played. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 10:37, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I want people to compare these two template, before !voting, and think, is John Wayne's any more ridiculous that the other notable person?

{{Elvis Presley}}

{{Filmography of John Wayne}}

They both fill a similar space expanded, and Elvis' is on nearly 300 article pages.. hardly seems balanced that musicians should take precedent over actors when it comes to making navigation easier (the sole purpose of "navboxes", hence the name). Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 10:55, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Btw, "FAIL" is a childish edit summary" Coming from the guy who uses "simplez". Oh dear. The Elvis template needs to have the filmography removed from it, as per other similar ones for musicians. Lugnuts ^{And the horse} 13:47, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure.. and next who, perhaps the notable Template:Laurel and Hardy filmography or Template:Billy Connolly? Given that the matter of "filmography navboxes" has not received a proper consensus (note, the above link is not for a consensus, it's a WP:SYNTHESIS of different and old nominations) and given that WP:Film is not the only WikiProject that utilises filmographies, and given that the ability to create Films by Actor categories is impossible due to objections and deletion, and what with editors like Lugnuts racing round creating scratty low-quality ~2kb Stub articles by the hundreds, each with barely 2 or 3 lines of actual content, but hampering other editors desire to provide accessibility to relate those articles so they can be found and developed in time.. which can only be done 3 ways: navboxes, categories, and lists.. it is fairly hypocritical that there is such objection to using the simplest methods of interlinking any actors film history, yet musicians have huge navboxes, as do royalty, peers, military figures, war conflicts, hill/mountain ranges.. the purpose being to provide immediate access (or in encyclopedic terms: indexing) to related articles without readers having to trawl through hard-to-find categories (articles are not always tagged or cat names are obfuscated), or wade through lists which often have mixed standards.. navboxes have a "fixed" design wikilinking direct to content, are collapsible, can be "shelled", and tucked away at the bottom, out of harms way. I think, in due time, a larger RFC may be necessary to invite a wider range of opinions from multiple-Wikiprojects and editors, as it seems highly inappropriate that it should be so hard to manage mass amounts of content without a cabal of anti-actor-navbox/cat. editors holding back progress. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 14:38, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:A navbox on every page#Benefits of navboxes –Truer words were never said... Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 20:38, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nice essay and use of WP:OTHERSTUFF to avoid the point of this navbox. Lugnuts ^{And the horse} 08:28, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whether MarcusBritish was aware of it or not, we do indeed have a firm consensus not to include lists of works in which an actor has appeared in navboxes for that actor. Not a consensus that I feel very strongly about myself, but definitely one regularly invoked at TfD. So yes, it's unfortunate that a considerable amount of time and effort has been put into this, but that isn't in and of itself a reason to ignore said consensus (I'll spare everyone the ACRONYMSPAM as we're all experienced editors). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:06, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If t'were true, would be made clear in WP:NAV or WP:NAV BOX, not tucked away in WikiProject archives for no bugger to see until they've wasted time and effort. Consensus doesn't function when only people "in the know" control the material and operate the red tape which hinders contributive efforts. I'm sure even you can't find fault with that not unreasonable conclusion. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 10:22, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is true, Marcus. If you'd bothered to look at the Film Project Manual of Style, you'd see a section about templates and navigation. This clearly states "WikiProject consensus is against including actor templates since not all actors have substantial appearances in all their films and since multiple actors in a film would overpopulate the bottom of a film article with actor templates regardless of role prominence." I've taken the liberty of linking to said consensus in the opening words of this existing, long standing policy. Hardly "tucked away". Lugnuts ^{And the horse} 19:15, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per longstanding policy. These three articles John Wayne filmography (1926–1940) John Wayne filmography (1941–1960) John Wayne filmography (1961–1976) are more than enough to cover this subject. MarnetteD | Talk 21:10, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the 3 list articles into a single filmography, to solve - This template exists (usefully) because the filmography is split into 3 separate lists! John Wayne filmography (1926–1940), John Wayne filmography (1941–1960), and John Wayne filmography (1961–1976) - each is only 30kb. Merge them, and delete this template. —Quiddity (talk) 01:22, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a side issue (about merging the three articles). Maybe you could start the discussion on the article talkpages? Lugnuts ^{And the horse} 09:01, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I shall consider doing that, shortly. Won't require a formal "permission to merge" discussion, it's a non-controversial issue. May bring the "new" list awfully close to the 100kb WP:SIZERULE recommendation, but I'll see what can be done to keep it trim... Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 11:18, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The size rule only applies to readable prose, not to footnotes or wiki code. John Wayne filmography (1926–1940) is about 35k, but only 15k of that is "readable" prose i.e. the text and the table content. There shouldn't be any size issues if they are merged. Betty Logan (talk) 11:37, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

True, that.. but tables are generally very unwieldy, HTML-wise they're probably the most bulky of markup, so I like to be careful and consider the page entire, to aid accessibility (WAI conscious). Also, wikitables are template-based and as such there are parser limitations: Wikipedia:Template limits – is important that a page doesn't show strain or become slow-loading, just basic prose won't do that easily, but lengthy tables will. I doubt 184 rows will have an undesirable effect for most readers, however, but it is long. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 11:51, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I think it's a very nicely designed navbox and it's a shame so much effort has gone into it, but the Film project has a consensus against adding actor navboxes to film articles due to the fact that many actors appear in films. Elvis is a special case in that his navbox primarily encompasses his discography, and I do question whether it should include his film appearances, but that's not the issue here. Betty Logan (talk) 09:18, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the consensus against having navigation templates for actors. MOS:FILM#Navigation says, "Not all actors have substantial appearances in all their films and since multiple actors in a film would overpopulate the bottom of a film article with actor templates regardless of role prominence." In contrast, director templates are accepted because there is usually one name attached to a given work. I know that the template proliferation is in good faith, but I think there could be better approaches like making sure that "Filmography" sections are readily available on actors' articles. I've seen that this is not always the case. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:30, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete per prior consensus, this is a slippery slope which leads to too many navigation boxes. a category, sure, but not a navbox here. Frietjes (talk) 17:44, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just rename it, and let it replace the useless Template:John Wayne. Why only show some of his films, when there is a rather large number which have blue links even? It helps people who are interested in finding and reading about his films he did at different times in his career. Dream Focus 13:47, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox Sydney closed station

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:43, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Sydney closed station (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused wrapper for {{Infobox station}}. Sw2nd (talk) 04:14, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:28, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Sydneyclosedstationnav

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:46, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sydneyclosedstationnav (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused custom succession template. Sw2nd (talk) 04:14, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.